Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
A High Court considered preliminary objections to departmental appeals against an advance ruling and upheld their maintainability. It held that the 90-day period for passing the appellate order under Section 101(2) is directory, operating as an outer time limit and not a jurisdictional bar that nullifies the appeal on expiry. It also accepted the actual dates of communication for limitation purposes, found condonation competent where filed within the extended period, held that separate CGST and SGST officers had statutory appellate locus, and treated manual filing as a procedural issue not defeating the appeal. The Court further rejected estoppel and natural justice objections.
A High Court considered preliminary objections to departmental appeals against an advance ruling and upheld their maintainability. It held that the 90-day period for passing the appellate order under Section 101(2) is directory, operating as an outer time limit and not a jurisdictional bar that nullifies the appeal on expiry. It also accepted the actual dates of communication for limitation purposes, found condonation competent where filed within the extended period, held that separate CGST and SGST officers had statutory appellate locus, and treated manual filing as a procedural issue not defeating the appeal. The Court further rejected estoppel and natural justice objections.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
